East coast wind grid gets a go ahead

The wind is always blowing somewhere.

Research journals are filled with clever ideas that never quite come to fruition in the form of a successful commercial venture. Technical glitches, a failure to scale, or some sort of unforeseen limitation keep some of the best research from ever having the impact that it might. That's why it was a pleasant surprise to see that one of the more compelling ideas of the last few years is inching its way toward reality.

Back in 2010, a group of researchers proposed an intriguing scheme that would take an intermittent source of power—wind energy—and convert it into something closer to baseline power. The goal would be to wire up wind farms off the East Coast of the US into one giant generating system that, given the region's prevailing wind pattern, would almost always be guaranteed to be producing a minimum amount of power.

It seemed like a brilliant idea that would almost certainly languish in obscurity. So the fact that the Department of the Interior has taken the first step toward approving it this week was a bit of a pleasant surprise.

The idea behind the project is pretty simple: a local source of wind power tends to be at the mercy of the prevailing weather conditions. On the East Coast, storms tend to form towards the south and take a roughly northeasterly track along the coast. So, if some weather leaves calm in its wake in the Carolinas, the chances are good that it's currently stirring things up in the neighborhood of New York City. This pattern means that it's extremely rare for the entire Eastern Seaboard to be calm. If you spread wind generators up and down the coast, some of them would almost always be producing power.

In a typical setup, that would just mean that the grids in some areas would be receiving wind power, while others might be looking for some form of backup generation. That's why the 2010 study proposed linking them all together through a single transmission system, and feeding that into the grid at a limited number of locations. That way, each of those sites would be getting power that may be a bit erratic, but would almost never drop below some minimum figure. The East Coast also makes for an appealing offshore wind construction area, since the continental shelf is fairly shallow in most areas.

Since the paper was published, a project to do just this has been attracting investors, Google among them. This week, the Department of the Interior announced that it took the first step toward approving an early stage of the offshore connector. The venture is looking to put a high-voltage, direct-current line in federal waters between northern New Jersey and Virginia. The DOI has recognized that no other company is planning to do so, and has given the project the go ahead to seek an environmental review.

The approval came despite the fact that there are no offshore wind farms in place at the moment. As it turns out, the project makes a degree of financial sense on its own, and could be a key enabler of wind farm installation.

As The New York Timesnotes, any offshore wind farms that are built will have to find some way of getting their power to shore. Under a typical design, each wind farm would be on its own, getting permits and building the infrastructure needed to feed into a local grid. Under the setup proposed here, each farm would just have to plug in to the off-shore cable, which would then plug in at a limited number of sites.

The cable could even perform a function before the first wind farm gets built. For various reasons (many discussed here), electric power is pretty expensive in New Jersey, which already imports a lot of it from out-of-state. A direct wire to Virginia would add a degree of flexibility, and quite possibly offer lower prices to consumers.

The project is a long way from being reality, but it's clearly attracted some serious investors. It also looks to have been greeted with enthusiasm by the DOI, which will ultimately be responsible for issuing permits. And that's a lot further than many other clever ideas hatched in academia ever make it.

38 Reader Comments

Can anyone think of a logical reason why wind grids shouldn't be set up all along both coasts? Combined with wave power under the surface, then solar grids in the arid desert? Think of the boost to local economies, the job creation, the greater stability in the supply of energy.

Can anyone think of a logical reason why wind grids shouldn't be set up all along both coasts? Combined with wave power under the surface, then solar grids in the arid desert? Think of the boost to local economies, the job creation, the greater stability in the supply of energy.

This part

article wrote:

The East Coast also makes for an appealing offshore wind construction area, since the continental shelf is fairly shallow in most areas.

Can anyone think of a logical reason why wind grids shouldn't be set up all along both coasts? Combined with wave power under the surface, then solar grids in the arid desert? Think of the boost to local economies, the job creation, the greater stability in the supply of energy.

Obviously because the rich hippies who like to buy houses on the ocean hate to see unsightly propellers marring their view of the sunrise/sunset.

I read somewhere (maybe here on Ars, come to think of it) that wind farms produce areas of local warming due to the slowing of the wind? What affect could this have on the local water temperatures, and could we have some in the UK please?

The project is fine and all, but it's not that amazing. It's just an independent, for-profit transmission line. Instead of contracting to connect to the onshore utility, the wind farm will contract with the owner of this offshore line. The offshore line will be expensive to build, so I'm sure the charge to the wind farm will be as well. They have to pay someone. Nothing's free. Is there some efficiency to having fewer connections to shore? Maybe so. They'll have to get a good number of offshore wind farms to sign on before that point is reached. Transmission is definitely not the stumbling block or critical path for offshore wind at this point. It's government and citizen approval of the turbines themselves.

As far as the variability of wind generation dropping as the size of the aggregated wind farms rises, that effect has been building for years in the Great Plains of North America. There are now hundreds of wind farms there, and the average variability is lower as a result. However, note the Great Texas Wind Calm of ought 8 (2008) (my name for it). http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/ ... 2920080228Aggregating more wind turbines over a larger area decreases the average variability of the whole group, but it also increases the severity of the less-likely-but-still-possible massive wind calm.

Can anyone think of a logical reason why wind grids shouldn't be set up all along both coasts? Combined with wave power under the surface, then solar grids in the arid desert? Think of the boost to local economies, the job creation, the greater stability in the supply of energy.

Obviously because the rich hippies who like to buy houses on the ocean hate to see unsightly propellers marring their view of the sunrise/sunset.

I read somewhere (maybe here on Ars, come to think of it) that wind farms produce areas of local warming due to the slowing of the wind? What affect could this have on the local water temperatures, and could we have some in the UK please?

I read somewhere (maybe here on Ars, come to think of it) that wind farms produce areas of local warming due to the slowing of the wind? What affect could this have on the local water temperatures, and could we have some in the UK please?

Transmission is definitely not the stumbling block or critical path for offshore wind at this point. It's government and citizen approval of the turbines themselves.

That's not necessarily accurate. The cost of offshore wind is a huge issue, and connecting them into the grid is very expensive. This should make things cheaper -- assuming people can actually get together and coordinate with the line. People have opposed Cape Wind, but that's at least in part because it's so close to the shore. By building a transmission line like this the industry might be able to economically build further out and.... well get out of NIMBY's backyards.

Transmission is definitely not the stumbling block or critical path for offshore wind at this point. It's government and citizen approval of the turbines themselves.

That's not necessarily accurate. The cost of offshore wind is a huge issue, and connecting them into the grid is very expensive. This should make things cheaper -- assuming people can actually get together and coordinate with the line. People have opposed Cape Wind, but that's at least in part because it's so close to the shore. By building a transmission line like this the industry might be able to economically build further out and.... well get out of NIMBY's backyards.

I definitely agree that cost is a big issue. Offshore wind turbines are more expensive than onshore, even including the better capacity factor offshore. Installing and maintaining wind turbines in the ocean ain't cheap. Running cables to land is still a minor part of the cost. If you transmit via DC, required for long distances, then the DC/AC converters will add a good chunk of cash.

Most of the onshore wind plants in the US benefited from government policies promoting them (financial benefits and/or utility mandates). Offshore wind will need support even more. I'm not against that at all, just making note of it. Many valuable and critical technologies were initially pushed by the gubberment (a little thing called The Internet comes to mind).

Can anyone think of a logical reason why wind grids shouldn't be set up all along both coasts? Combined with wave power under the surface, then solar grids in the arid desert? Think of the boost to local economies, the job creation, the greater stability in the supply of energy.

This part

article wrote:

The East Coast also makes for an appealing offshore wind construction area, since the continental shelf is fairly shallow in most areas.

Maybe the Pacific is deeper close to the coast than the Atlantic.

Pretty much spot on, though not necessarily because it's deeper (though I think this is true). If you look at http://ccom.unh.edu/theme/law-sea/atlantic-margin the map starts zoomed in, but you can zoom out a little bit and you can see the difference between the two shelves. The Atlantic shelf is primarily a plateau for a great distance off the shoreline, but if you look at the Pacific shelf it's far, far more rigid and doesn't extend nearly as far off the shoreline.

How is this viable without government (taxpayer) subsidies?I would think that if it was profitable then private entities would already have taken this idea.Sounds green, and clean, but prohibitively expensive.

HVDC actually has advantages over AC for long-distance transmissions. This is different from the Edison days.

primordius wrote:

How is this viable without government (taxpayer) subsidies?I would think that if it was profitable then private entities would already have taken this idea.Sounds green, and clean, but prohibitively expensive.

Um... private entities ARE already taking this idea on. Did you read the article?

Can anyone think of a logical reason why wind grids shouldn't be set up all along both coasts? Combined with wave power under the surface, then solar grids in the arid desert? Think of the boost to local economies, the job creation, the greater stability in the supply of energy.

There is plenty of NIMBYism at work.

And related to other stories--energy costs will no doubt continue to rise. Will probably be less public resistance to projects like this, when the economic bite increases.

The real question, though, is whether the cost/benefit of this will pan out in the long run.

The goal would be to wire up wind farms off the East Coast of the US into one giant generating system that, given the region's prevailing wind pattern, would almost always be guaranteed to be producing a minimum amount of power.

I see no mention of what this minimum would be.

Quote:

That's why the 2010 study proposed linking them all together through a single transmission system, and feeding that into the grid at a limited number of locations.

So only a limited number of locations will benefit from the power generated. This raises the question of who will end up paying for the construction of the offshore wind farms. Should the residents of Delaware (for example) pay to build a wind farm that they cannot benefit from? Or, as would seem more fair, should the residents of those locations that can feed off the offshore grid pay for the wind farms that feed it? That seems more fair, but it also seems prohibitively expensive for any location that would receive said offshore wind power.

Can anyone think of a logical reason why wind grids shouldn't be set up all along both coasts? Combined with wave power under the surface, then solar grids in the arid desert? Think of the boost to local economies, the job creation, the greater stability in the supply of energy.

This part

article wrote:

The East Coast also makes for an appealing offshore wind construction area, since the continental shelf is fairly shallow in most areas.

Maybe the Pacific is deeper close to the coast than the Atlantic.

Could also have something to do with the San Andreas Fault. A massive subduction zone might not play nicely with wind farms.

I read a paper that essentialyl showed that the aggregate wind output over a 700 mile long east coast grid, based on data from the last 50 years of fairly accurate wind data, would produce a median power output within +/- 5% of a target number. Intercnnected with a single superconducting loop, and tied to about 6-10 shorline grid connection points, it would be very close to a baseline power system, and could actually replace large amounts of coal power.

The sea shelf is stable, and base points would be good for 100-150 years, with rotors being changed out every 30-50. The largest issue with the system is actually maintnenace, not cost or reliability. We would likely need offshore "posts" manned 24x7 by a collection of engineers and coast guard. However, that's just another way of saying "lots of well paying jobs" and it also would dramatically increase the security presence on the east coast providing additional benefits.

If I'm not mistaken, Google offered up something like half the cost of the trunk line construction, if others coiughed up the cost of the rest, plus the turbines (which would pay for themselves easily).

The goal would be to wire up wind farms off the East Coast of the US into one giant generating system that, given the region's prevailing wind pattern, would almost always be guaranteed to be producing a minimum amount of power.

I see no mention of what this minimum would be.

Quote:

That's why the 2010 study proposed linking them all together through a single transmission system, and feeding that into the grid at a limited number of locations.

So only a limited number of locations will benefit from the power generated. This raises the question of who will end up paying for the construction of the offshore wind farms. Should the residents of Delaware (for example) pay to build a wind farm that they cannot benefit from? Or, as would seem more fair, should the residents of those locations that can feed off the offshore grid pay for the wind farms that feed it? That seems more fair, but it also seems prohibitively expensive for any location that would receive said offshore wind power.

The minimum is an easily calculatable figure based on a percentage +/- about 5% of the nominal output of each tower, multipliedby the number iof towers. The base load they target determines how many towers to deploy, and it shoudl be expandible over time easily with limited desing issues.

A limited number of grid interconnects will be used. That just means thay'll tie into mains at several points on the coast, with the intent of covering say a 75-125 mile region. It does not mean it may only cover one city, it just means they'll limit how many different grids they tie into . This limits the complexity of billing the power out based on usage at each point. The point is to be a wholesale baseload provider, not to provide specific communities or small towns with power, but large regions that have expansive, already relatively modern grids that themselves can be used to help load balancing (and maybe even provide their own overproduction at certain times back into the main).

And residents rarely pay for power construction. Power development is typically funded at federal levels up to half, plus the power company itself for the rest, and has a 20 year or less payback outlook on low interest loans. Such a system as this would provide a near guarantee in reduced power bills as wind, even offshore, is dramatically cheaper to provide than any other type of power today. Wind's cost issues are in what to do with overproduction (not an issue on a large scale supergrid), and downtime/low-wind times (also not an issue for a distributed grid). The investment is massive, but because of scale, the return is MUCH better, and its essentialyl guaranteed to succeed.

As a Marylander, I have to say... some days there is a breeze, but twice a day we have tides, so why not go with tides as a more predictable source of energy?

many, many reasons.

tidal power is expensive.Tidal power has material contamination/filtering issuesPower desity of tidal energy is low yeld vs windtital power has larger environmental impact issuestotal power only workd where water can be channeled/flows, specifically very near the coast, where wind can be deployed in much larger area.Tides go in part of the day, out part of the day, but sit stagnat as well 2 other points in the dat, making them non-linear output, unless you;re talking channeling into lakes and slow drainage through turbines, which makes it a landlocked power system and even more expensive.

The project is fine and all, but it's not that amazing. It's just an independent, for-profit transmission line. Instead of contracting to connect to the onshore utility, the wind farm will contract with the owner of this offshore line. The offshore line will be expensive to build, so I'm sure the charge to the wind farm will be as well. They have to pay someone. Nothing's free. Is there some efficiency to having fewer connections to shore? Maybe so. They'll have to get a good number of offshore wind farms to sign on before that point is reached. Transmission is definitely not the stumbling block or critical path for offshore wind at this point. It's government and citizen approval of the turbines themselves.

As far as the variability of wind generation dropping as the size of the aggregated wind farms rises, that effect has been building for years in the Great Plains of North America. There are now hundreds of wind farms there, and the average variability is lower as a result. However, note the Great Texas Wind Calm of ought 8 (2008) (my name for it). http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/ ... 2920080228Aggregating more wind turbines over a larger area decreases the average variability of the whole group, but it also increases the severity of the less-likely-but-still-possible massive wind calm.

We already do offshore wind, and we know the cost. East coast will be cheaper than west due to the underwater terrrain and shallower depths.

The offshore line will be a superconducting trunk, similar to those deployed already in england, on long island and in north central USA. Underwater deployment of those lines is actually CHEAPER than on land (digging requires eminent domain, eaments, and great expense, and time, where sinking a line is easy). The structural cost of a superconducting line vs similar supercapacity traditional lines is actually about even, once you include the lack of power loss of superconducting lines vs the other.

Having fewer shore connections provides a simpler switching system, and also simplifies the wholesale process. The idea is to initially focus on offering it to only larger scale grids that themselves also have good load balancing capabilties on the regional level, and that have large demand. Also, focusiiing on offering it where power is needed most first, or can offset the least-green regions is an intention of this project (later scaling will offer more power and more connections).

There are hundreds of wind frams, they are however combined total smaller than this one. Also, they are not interconnected or interlocked with a superconductive main grid. That's the probelm with the existing Us power grid, it is almost impossible today to deliver power more than 100 miles from where it is generated. Also, if a wind farm OVER produces, they actually today have to PAY to offload that power (negative income), because it has to go somewhere, but can;t go far enough. That's the point with this, 800 miles and anyone can take the power output. Texas is not 800 miles wide. texas is only 740 miles at its widest pioint, but it;s wind corridor is only 450 miles wide. It is also a single wind zone, where the east coast is 5 zones, with a rolling weather patern texas lacks (there's either a storm over texas, or not, where there's almost always a strom on the east coast somewhere).

back 50 years, the east coasts nominal wind to 15 minute increments across the proposed zone is normalized to +/- 5%. That's VERY stable. Same time over texas, it's more like +/- 60%. yes, it;s possible for a massive wind calm in a single region. However, they donp;t care if a single entity or group owns the whole thing, and power output can be billed at a continueal rate within a very small margin, provided that margin greatly exceeds the cost (which study shows here, it meets that and then some). The east coast is one of the few places on earth this phenomenon exists in a short 700-800 mile section. S America also has one, but it;s an 1100 mile section to get the same normality.

How is this viable without government (taxpayer) subsidies?I would think that if it was profitable then private entities would already have taken this idea.Sounds green, and clean, but prohibitively expensive.

It's totally viable without subsidy. It is not viable without nlarge investment and government loan for startup. That's different.

And private entities ARE behind this idea, they just need government APPROVAL to deploy it (environmental and regulatory concerns).

it;s not prohibitively expensive. In fact, that's the point. Operating costs are actually normalized over the whole, eliminating the localized costs that can bankrupt a regional wind farm. Individual towers don;t have the profit potential of a small scale farm ina high wind zone on a per-tower level, but given the TW output capabilties, thay can prodice more total power at less cost per watt vs deploying most any other form of power source. Wind power, even offshore, has very low deployment costs, and low operating costs, it;s probelm and money drain is the cost of getting rid of power when they OVER produce. (a little known fact, making TOO much power is the largest cost to wind farms, not making too little). A large supergrid allows themj to send overproduction withing a 700-800 mile range, not 150 miles as current on-shore farms are limited to on old-school grids and overhead lines.

It is of course more complex than even that.HVDC is better in some cases, but lowers reliability. HVDC has lower capacitance and requires less conductors at comparable voltages. & DC is less likely to disturb superconduction due to miniscule variation of the magnetic field. Yes, there are some superconducting grids

-- High-temperature superconductors promise to revolutionize power distribution by -- providing lossless transmission of electrical power. The development of superconductors-- with transition temperatures higher than the boiling point of liquid nitrogen has made the-- concept of superconducting power lines commercially feasible, at least for high-load -- applications.[24] It has been estimated that the waste would be halved using this method,-- since the necessary refrigeration equipment would consume about half the power saved-- by the elimination of the majority of resistive losses. Some companies such as Consolidated-- Edison and American Superconductor have already begun commercial production of -- such systems.[25] In one hypothetical future system called a SuperGrid, the cost of-- cooling would be eliminated by coupling the transmission line with a liquid hydrogen pipeline.

-- Superconducting cables are particularly suited to high load density areas such as the-- business district of large cities, where purchase of an easement for cables would be very costly.

I know that superconducting magnets have been used for years in particle colliders and such, but to the best of my knowledge, they've only been proposed for motors and transmission lines and other applications. And how you would you reliably cool hundreds of miles of underwater cable?

This part I found interesting

-- It has been estimated that the waste would be halved using this method, since the -- necessary refrigeration equipment would consume about half the power saved by the-- elimination of the majority of resistive losses.

If a large system of interconnected wind farms almost always produced a steady amount of electricity, wouldn't the overall power grid still have to be designed for those instances when the wind did die at all locations?

it;s not prohibitively expensive. In fact, that's the point. Operating costs are actually normalized over the whole, eliminating the localized costs that can bankrupt a regional wind farm. Individual towers don;t have the profit potential of a small scale farm ina high wind zone on a per-tower level, but given the TW output capabilties, thay can prodice more total power at less cost per watt vs deploying most any other form of power source. Wind power, even offshore, has very low deployment costs, and low operating costs, it;s probelm and money drain is the cost of getting rid of power when they OVER produce. (a little known fact, making TOO much power is the largest cost to wind farms, not making too little). A large supergrid allows themj to send overproduction withing a 700-800 mile range, not 150 miles as current on-shore farms are limited to on old-school grids and overhead lines.

Very interesting. Could you please provide a reference? The reason I ask is becasue the sources I have all put offshore wind near the top of the cost pile, second only to Solar. See e.g. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6910. But this reference does not break out the cost of overgeneration, which is indeed a problem that a long-distance grid could ameliorate. That large private investors are signing on is a positive indication you are correct; nonetheless a citation would be most useful. Thanks!

The longest HVDC link in the world is currently the Xiangjiaba-Shanghai 2,071 km (1,287 mi) 6400 MW link connecting the Xiangjiaba Dam to Shanghai, in the People's Republic of China.[2] In 2012, the longest HVDC link will be the Rio Madeira link connecting the Amazonas to the São Paulo area where the length of the DC line is over 2,500 km (1,600 mi).[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

This is exactly the kind of general infrastructure project we should be investing in without reservation. Throwing government money at specific longshot green energy companies is a huge waste of resources, since we can't predict even the near future of the market (c.f. Solyndra); but infrastructure projects like this will benefit the whole energy market and everyone served by it, regardless of future developments. More of this, please.

-- High-temperature superconductors promise to revolutionize power distribution by -- providing lossless transmission of electrical power. The development of superconductors-- with transition temperatures higher than the boiling point of liquid nitrogen has made the-- concept of superconducting power lines commercially feasible, at least for high-load -- applications.[24] It has been estimated that the waste would be halved using this method,-- since the necessary refrigeration equipment would consume about half the power saved-- by the elimination of the majority of resistive losses. Some companies such as Consolidated-- Edison and American Superconductor have already begun commercial production of -- such systems.[25] In one hypothetical future system called a SuperGrid, the cost of-- cooling would be eliminated by coupling the transmission line with a liquid hydrogen pipeline.

-- Superconducting cables are particularly suited to high load density areas such as the-- business district of large cities, where purchase of an easement for cables would be very costly.

I know that superconducting magnets have been used for years in particle colliders and such, but to the best of my knowledge, they've only been proposed for motors and transmission lines and other applications. And how you would you reliably cool hundreds of miles of underwater cable?

This part I found interesting

-- It has been estimated that the waste would be halved using this method, since the -- necessary refrigeration equipment would consume about half the power saved by the-- elimination of the majority of resistive losses.

Wow. I was sure I saw a story in 2010 but can't find it. I thought it was the installation of 600m between two substations in NY, but can't find a reference. All that seems to exist is the proposal for that project (Project Hydra)

" back 50 years, the east coasts nominal wind to 15 minute increments across the proposed zone is normalized to +/- 5%. "

Yup at about 10% capacity factor nominal doubling the all in cost including 5 times sized transmission and gas backup to 70 cents a kwh.

All in nukes are 4 cents a kwh when built by public power and are around 24/7 not mostly at night in low peak spring and fall. Most of the rest of the time the 100% nameplate inefficient gas plant run inefficiently is spewing deadly air pollution and GHG's.

The wind industry is a wholly offshoot of Big Oil. It loves those gas sales.

All in nukes are 4 cents a kwh when built by public power and are around 24/7 not mostly at night in low peak spring and fall. Most of the rest of the time the 100% nameplate inefficient gas plant run inefficiently is spewing deadly air pollution and GHG's.

This is a trifle simpliste. While existing "old" nukes may be run at this low rate, from http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6910 one sees the cost of new nuclear generation, at 8-12 cents/kwh is nearly equal to that of offshore wind (12 - 14 cents). Natural gas is listed as 6-8 cents. As you suggest, utilitization is critical: PWR nukes run baseload, and operate at about 90% utlization, while gas (cyclic and peak) and wind (intermittent) are currently somewhat less than 30% each. -- see figures 5 and 6 at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6935. An interesting question -- to which I don't know the answer -- is at what cost the East Coast Wind Grid will supply its "advertised" baseline: will that be the previousy cited 12 - 14 cents / kwh, or three times that amount?

All in nukes are 4 cents a kwh when built by public power and are around 24/7 not mostly at night in low peak spring and fall. Most of the rest of the time the 100% nameplate inefficient gas plant run inefficiently is spewing deadly air pollution and GHG's.

This is a trifle simpliste. While existing "old" nukes may be run at this low rate, from http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6910 one sees the cost of new nuclear generation, at 8-12 cents/kwh is nearly equal to that of offshore wind (12 - 14 cents). Natural gas is listed as 6-8 cents. As you suggest, utilitization is critical: PWR nukes run baseload, and operate at about 90% utlization, while gas (cyclic and peak) and wind (intermittent) are currently somewhat less than 30% each. -- see figures 5 and 6 at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6935. An interesting question -- to which I don't know the answer -- is at what cost the East Coast Wind Grid will supply its "advertised" baseline: will that be the previousy cited 12 - 14 cents / kwh, or three times that amount?

These are US prices. YMMV. Particularly for offshore wind. Predictability of supply is critical, and of course is the topic of this East Coast Wind Grid article.

The figures you are quoting are from the EIA which is run by Big Oil. They assume a 15% capital cost requirement for ultra inefficient American private power companies. The far better run public utility like TVA, Bonneville, and the best in the North American awarding winning Hydro Quebec borrow at 4%. At the $4B/Gw cost of the new AP-1000 machines at VC Summer which is twice the cost of building them in China because of American corruption, at 4% and adding the current 2 cent a kwh nuke fuel/OM cost you get 4 cents a kwh.

The rather stupid natural gas cost canard of course always fails to account for the fact that current $2/mcf gas is only a $2/mcf LNG tanker ride to a $18/mcf international market. The actual production cost of gas delivered is $9/mcf. Do you think Big Oil and Obama can keep gas prices low for long enough to convert American coal plants to gas or far worse wind/solar backed up by gas?

My advice to is to get actual costs when making comparisons as all US government organization and Green organizations push Big Oil and its wholly owned subsidiary Big Green's agenda.